Normal-tension glaucoma is associated with cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recent research suggests an association between normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) and dementia. This study investigated whether cognitive impairment is more strongly associated with NTG than high tension glaucoma (HTG) using cognitive screening within an Australiasian Glaucoma Disease Registry. METHODS: The authors completed a case-control cross-sectional cognitive screening involving 290 age-matched and sex-matched NTG participants and HTG controls aged ≥65 randomly sampled from the Australian and New Zealand Registry of Advanced Glaucoma. Cognitive screening was performed using the Telephone Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (T-MoCA). The T-MoCA omits points requiring visual interpretation, accounting for confounding factors related to vision loss in visually impaired participants. Cognitive impairment was defined by a T-MoCA score of <11/22. Cognition was compared between NTG and HTG participants using predetermined thresholds and absolute screening scores. RESULTS: A total of 290 participants completed cognitive assessment. There were no differences in NTG (n=144) and HTG (n=146) cohort demographics or ocular parameters at baseline. Cognitive impairment was more prevalent in the NTG cohort than the HTG cohort (OR=2.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 6.7, p=0.030). Though a linear trend was also observed between lower absolute T-MoCA scores in the NTG cohort when compared with the HTG cohort, this association was not statistically significant (p=0.108). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated an association between NTG status and poor cognition, supporting the hypothesis that there exists a disease association and shared pathoaetiological features between NTG and dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".